Before
the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Record Document
96) filed by Third Party Defendant Thomas Jagielski
(“Jagielski”). Jagielski seeks entry of summary
judgment dismissing Count VIII of Defendants' Amended
Third Party Complaint (Record Document 58). More
specifically, Jagielski seeks dismissal of Counter-Plaintiff
and Third Party Plaintiff Module X Solutions, LLC's
(“MXS”) claim of tortious interference with a
contract by a corporate officer. Defendants MXS, Steven L.
Schoonover (“Schoonover”), Jeff Hood, and Jim
Dean (collectively referred to as “Defendants”)
and Counter-Plaintiff and Third Party Plaintiff MXS oppose
the Motion for Summary Judgment. See Record Document
109. For the reasons set forth below, Jagielski's Motion
for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and
MXS's claim of tortious interference with a contract by a
corporate officer against Jagielski is
DISMISSED.

BACKGROUND

In
Count VIII, MXS alleges that Jagielski tortiously interfered
with the Joint Venture Agreement (the “JV
Agreement”) between MXS and Sabre Industries, Inc.
(“Sabre”) by causing Sabre to breach its
obligation under the JV Agreement by “refusing to
provide MXS with the required shelter orders . . ., and
instead keeping this business for Sabre.” Record
Document 58 at ¶ 274. MXS maintains that “an
officer of a corporation has a duty not to interfere with
that corporation's contractual relations.”
Id. MXS further alleges that Jagielski had full
knowledge of the JV Agreement, yet abused his position of
authority at Sabre and “tortiously interfered with the
success of the JV Agreement.” Id.

Jagielski
was not involved with negotiating the JV Agreement between
MXS and Sabre. See Record Document 96-1 at ¶ 1.
At all times relevant to the allegations in Count VIII of
Defendants' Amended Third Party Complaint (Record
Document 58), Jagielski was employed at Sabre as the
Vice-President and General Manager of Sabre's CellXion
facility. See id. at ¶ 2. As Vice-President and
General Manager, his duties included all the duties of a
general manager, that is, he was in charge of what went on at
Sabre's CellXion facility. See id. at ¶ 3.
Part of his duties at Sabre included managing the volume of
work orders, including shelter orders, and deciding what
shelters to send to MXS and what shelters to keep at Sabre
based on the volume that Sabre had at any given time. See
id. at ¶ 4.

In
support of his motion, Jagielski has submitted the
declaration of Pete Sandore (“Sandore”), the CEO
and President of Sabre. See Record Document 96-8.
Sandore stated that he was CEO and President of Sabre at all
time relevant to the allegations by MXS against Jagielski for
tortious interference with a contract. See id. at
¶ 1. He further declared:

When Jagielski was involved in making decisions of what
shelters to send to MXS and what shelters to keep at Sabre
while the . . . JV Agreement between Sabre and MXS was in
effect, Jagielski was acting within the scope of his
authority as the Vice-President and General Manager of
Sabre's CellXion facility.

When Jagielski was involved in making decisions of what
shelters to send to MXS and what shelters to keep at Sabre
while the JV Agreement was in effect, Jagielski was acting to
benefit Sabre's interests. These decisions were based on
the volume of orders at Sabre at that time.

Id. at ¶¶ 5-6. Conversely, Defendants
contend in their Statement of Disputed Material Facts that
Jagielski acted knowingly contrary to the best interest of
Sabre and intentionally induced or caused Sabre to breach the
JV Agreement, without justification. See Record
Document 109-4.

LAW
AND ANALYSIS

I.
Summary Judgment Standard.

Rule 56(a) provides, in pertinent part:

Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. A
party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim
or defense-or the part of each claim or defense-on which
summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary
judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
as to ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.